Review: Rings

(imdb.com)

Horror sequels are a thing. There is no way around it. They're going to make them and they're going to make them a lot. What does need to be a thing however, is awful, no holds barred trash fires like Rings. I get it; the dislike for movies like Sinister 2 or Woman in Black: Angel of Death hold some warrant, but never again do I want to hear that horror movie sequels like these are as condemnable as the third installment in the long since dried The Rings series. This movie sucks, sorry there isn't some critical way of putting it. When something is this bad, it doesn't deserve to be examined seriously or academically. It just sucks. 

Note: Rings is a third, not a remake. Rings opens up as sort of a reboot to the old mythology put forth by the original two, but quickly devolves away through unexplainably complicated additions to the story, with what I'm guessing were hopes that no one remembered the actual plots of the previous two. This one follows Matilda Lutz (L'Estate Addosso) as Julia, a girlfriend and hopeful final girl who wants to find out why her boyfriend isn't texting her back. She goes to his college, barges in on one of his seminars and gets caught up in a science experiment involving Samara. Rings also features Alex Roe (The Fugitives) as boyfriend Holt, Johnny Galecki (The Big Bang Theory) as seedy science professor, Gabriel, and Vincent D'Onofrio (Full Metal Jacket)  as former priest and watcher of Samara's grave, Burke.

The list of atrocities committed by Rings is pretty extensive. So let’s look first at the scares since that's what really matters, right? Surprise, there are none! That is except for one- a bird hitting a windshield is this movie's sole jump scare and claim to fame. If I really cared to ever watch this movie again, I could just as easily Windex my window and wait for the same effect. From shaky CGI to the lukewarm suspense that would make even the most committed fidget, Rings seems so careless, it's as if it was just made to make money (this is the movie's only purpose, in case you couldn't pick that up).

Then, there's the acting. All around weak at best, sometimes worse than even expected, Lutz seems uninspired and unable to actually carry the role of a scream queen. Even after the dialogue attempts to set her up as strong-willed and independent woman, she quickly folds into half-hearted screams and acting that would make a freshman acting class cringe. Galecki also offers up a raw chicken quality as the professor who on one account is supposed to be "edgy" and "cool" but then also creepy for taking advantage of graduate students. You could also call out the D'Onofrio as well, but it's starting to feel a little repetitive. He's weak, but his storyline is equally awful, so maybe he's not entirely to blame (I'm being generous).

There is nothing salvageable about this tedious mess of a film. I could continue knocking on each and every aspect of how bad this movie was, but instead I'll say this: half of my theater got up and left midway through the movie. The other half, talking and on their phones, never sat still, captivated by the horrors of Rings. This movie is the type of car crash (oh there's one of those in this movie too, if that entices you), that you actually want to look away from because as noted, Rings sucks. I give it one square out of 10 rings because, like this movie it doesn't fit in.

Side note: I said The Bye Bye Man had an early ticket for worst of 2017, I rescind that. By comparison, The Bye Bye Man deserves Academy Awards.